Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Charter schools' progress lags - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - November 23, 2004

Charter schools' progress lags - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - November 23, 2004 These "studies" that show charter schools as being deficient almost never discuss one of the most important aspects of charter schools: their lack of monopoly status. This means that parents can pull their students out of the school if the school does not meet their standards. In essences, these reports are always based on a false premise: that measuring charter schools can and should be done using a bureaucratic measurement.

Do not assume that this statement means that charter schools should not be compared against public schools on standardized criteria. They should. But their mere existence after 10 years of life is going to demonstrate their success or failure. What does that mean to current students? Well, what does a currently disasterous public school mean to its current students? Why are charter schools held under a microscope that public schools are not?

Charter schools tend to be most inviting to parents who are not satisfied with their student's current progress. The more obvious the problem, the more likely the parent will consider charter schools. It would seem to me that the poorest and the best students are going to get that treatment. It is harder to be the best so the poorer students will tend to pull averages, which I understand is the statisticians least favorite analytic tool. I want to know how many students are poor versus average versus great: what is the median performance -- forget the mean.

At least the Washington Times did us the favor of balancing the story with other points of view.

Monday, November 15, 2004

President Elect - 2000

President Elect - 2000

I have heard some discussion in places about whether Bush has a mandate. I went to the above website to determine if there was a mandate history. I learned more than I expected.

Of the last 23 national elections, Republican winners received a majority of the popular vote 14 out of 16 times. Democrat winners received a majority of the popular vote 6 out of 12 elections. If you remove FDR's wins, the Democrats received 2 out of 8 majority of the popular votes.

If the popular vote dictates the mandate (see Democrat arguments in 2000 against a Bush mandate with a "mere" electoral college win), other than the New Deal only LBJ and Carter had Democrat "mandates."

The mandates given are to Republicans: 14 out of 20 majority of the popular vote elections and 14 out of the 16 of those non-New-Deal "mandates."

If the Democrats have a standard for mandates that requires a popular vote win, they rarely get it. If the Republicans need to show it, they have received more than a 5% margin of victory 12 out of 17 times that it has been given since 1896.

Only misinformation and misdirection can show that the American people are anything other than 4 square in favor of the federal policy that Republicans promote.

Take away structural crises of the Depression and the Nixon fallout in 1976, and Democrats numbers would fare far worse.

Power Line: Arafat for beginners

Power Line: Arafat for beginners Powerline strikes again in its ability to bring many informative sources together for insightful comment.

Friday, November 12, 2004

Power Line: A fool speaks

Power Line: A fool speaks I agree that the Oslo Accords are deeply flawed in and of themselves. The one aspect of democracy, though, is that it must have soil, i.e., a fixed home, in which to take root. The power structure must be in the "homeland." The WWII Free French, Czechs, Swedes, etc. had a government outside their soil, so their people had no democracy.

If Bush is correct that democracy is the only hope of Middle East peace, then the Palestinian government had to come back on the soil of Palestine. Oslo may end up in the anals of history as being the Palestine approximation (poor as it may be) of the Paris Peace Accords of 1783 were to the U.S. Constitution -- a necessary first step toward a truely functional federal government.

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Walter Williams: Will the West survive?

Walter Williams: Will the West survive? Professor Williams explains the risks in not confronting Islamic terrorism.

Thomas Sowell explains Specter's danger

Thomas Sowell Professor Sowell explains why Specter has taken various positions on judicial nominations that seem logically inconsistent.

Fascinating idea about transition to democracy: the German experience



What can the Iraqis learn from the German experience and the follow of a dictatorship.

Probing the zero-sum divide - The Washington Times: Commentary - November 11, 2004

Probing the zero-sum divide - The Washington Times: Commentary - November 11, 2004

Professor Williams makes another persuasive case for limited government. This time it is to reduce the "divisiveness" that the Democrats so much bemoan, but the good professor would implicitly lay at their feet for a reason that is different than the Common Wisdom.

Reuters | Latest Financial News / Full News Coverage

Reuters | Latest Financial News / Full News Coverage

This is fascinating that Islam may be off base using the Qa'aran as the benchmark.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

Le Monde.fr : La France se fait bon gr? mal gr? ? la r??lection de George Bush

Le Monde.fr : La France se fait bon gr? mal gr? ? la r??lection de George Bush: "'Bien ?videmment je me r?jouis de ce r?sultat', a rench?ri son coll?gue lib?ral Alain Madelin. 'Face ? l'hyperterrorisme et ? la menace du fascisme islamique, on a besoin de l'engagement de la puissance am?ricaine (...). Je crois que le monde a besoin d'un gendarme et de la peur du gendarme' a-t-il ajout?"

The same article as mentioned in another link. This time it adds the sentiments of a "liberal," which in French parlance, I believe, is a more proper use of the term, i.e., similar to a classic liberal rather than an American Liberal or socialist. Here the Liberal party leaders praises the existence and need of America as the global sheriff. He also praises the need for the sheriff to be feared. Is this the French equivalent of "peace through strength": "peace through intimidation. Even the Frenchmen that we most understand are just a bit off of the American Conversative philosophy.

Sadly the French movement that looks very favorably on Thatcherism and Reaganism -- "Cherished Liberty" -- says almost nothing about the Bush victory on their website.

Pr?sidentielle US 2004

Pr?sidentielle US 2004

The centrists-Gaullists like Monsieur le president Chirac are seeking to downplay severe visionary differences with the re-elected Bush but the socialists and communists (which continue to amaze me that they continue to be relevant enough in French politics to be quoted in passing) still act like Chicken Little.